Too bad about reading Kuhn and not understanding him. Too bad about starting a polite discussion and ending it with insults.
Thanks for the Weinberg reference, I will look that up. It would have been nice to let my know what you taught nonsense - maybe I would have learned something.
What I was writing was a brief synopysis of current philosophies of science. If you found them tiring, that's just too bad.
"As to whether we are talking experts, or laypeople, the question that comes to mind most quickly is, "who gets to choose who qualifies as an expert?" "
This is an important question in the philosophy of science. The quick answer is that "the community of scientists". Of course we can expand this, but in general the community of scientists is a very tight group, which inducts its new members, chooses what's right and wrong etc. There are outside influences, of course. For example, if some funding body thinks nanotechnology is important, the community doing this kind of research will grow etc. The main thing to understand is that unlike what most people (including scientists) think, science is a SOCIAL phenomenon.
"In any case, my issue has always been with the '95% certainty' aspect of this announcement."
Given a normal distribution (of say, ages of the universe), there is a 95% probability that the actual value will lie within two standard deviations of the mean. This gives us both the stated spread of ages, and the 95% value.
You must keep in mind that this is a statistical range and certainty. If the calculations that you make, your assumptions, formulae whatever are wrong, then you'll have a different mean value and range etc. So, what they are saying is, given these assumptions, these observations, these models, we are calculating such and such age for the universe. Within these restrictions, there is a 95% chance the actual age is within the range given. It is a best guess.
"Regarding your mention of uncertainty (as in Heisenberg's example) this is, in fact, my point. If we can't measure multiple variables accurately, how can we account for the innumerable potential variables in measuring the age of the universe?"
Heisenberg's principle puts a fundamental limit on observation (measurement). It simply cannot be circumvented (the act of measurement is the source of uncertainty). It's effects, however, tend to be constrained to the quantum level - usually electrons, atoms, molecules etc.
Again, the question of error or uncertainty is not a question of only measurement. We can't account for all the variables in measuring anything. We make a best guess at a model, a best try at measuring the variables involved. We can get better estimates of the ages by either making better measurements, or coming up with better models. A better model may be more complex, to take into account more features of physical reality, or it may be based on variables that are easier for us to measure, etc.
"Sure, standard deviation might allow for the age, given enough measurements, but what about the percentage of certainty - particularly if only one yardstick is being used? How can we pick a number like.95, or any other number?"
So, what's happening is not "enough mesurements". There is an assumption of a particular distribution, and the.95 is the area this distrubution under two standard deviations away from the middle (mean). So, it's a purely statistical value. I believe if you go on std. dev. away from the mean, you get.68, etc.
"In regard to the creationism vs. science camps, I am not saying that it is possible to hold both views."
Yes. I think this would be impossible.
"I am saying that one must always consider the possibility that one is wrong. Be prepared for the pardigm shift."
I think this would also be impossible. Say I'm a creationist. I believe in devine revelation, that my holy book holds certain truths. It is unlikely that any evidence against these truths will convince me, because of the strength of my belief. When the two sides of the argument are so far apart in their validity claims, I don't think there is a very good chance of "changing sides".
As for the paradigm shift. You really should consider reading Kuhn, because he's the guy who coined the term. In particular, you can't call creationism a paradigm, since it does not lead to new research or new discoveries. It is more properly a dogma - accepted at face value because of its divine origin.
"Tangentially, I should mention that, while we are most familiar with extreme views on this subject, there are middle views. Many people, including scientists, believe in the "Intelligent Design" theory for example."
Well, that's the great thing about being able to think, isn't it? You can take two ideas and see if you can work out a new synthesis. Unfortunately many people, scientists or not, simply believe a single point of view, without thinking too much about its merits, consequences etc.
"Finally, on the subject of "Is the theory good enough to answer my questions", Kuhn writes that truth cannot be a criterion of scientific theories. Therefore all theories are equal."
This definitely is not right. All theories are not equal. Some are much better than others is DOING CERTAIN THINGS. The value of a theory is definitely linked to what you want to do with it. It's just that you can't you can't say that this theory is good because it's true.
"it simply means that your acceptance or rejection of the theory is predicated on what makes sense to you. It might not be what makes sense to me."
This is absolutely right, and not limited to theories. This is how humans think. There are no universal truths. However, most communities come up with a consensus on what they believe is right, such as church doctrine, science textbooks, laws etc.
"I would doubt that very many people of the general public would care much less take the time to *read* and understand a scientific paper. Such is the tragic nature of our world. People love hype and hate substance!"
Although I might agree with your final sentence, I don't think you are being fair. Scientific articles are written for the auidence of experts in their fields. To read an paper might be easy, but understanding it would require years of graduate work. I have an M.Sc. in physical chemistry, show me and organic chemistry paper, and it might as well be an cell biology paper!
He is saying, if you want to find the answers to your questions, there are many books written on these subjects, astronomy, error analysis etc. He's not being insulting, he's saying that these answers are out there, not hard to find nor too hard to understand.
"From my perspective the argument is that what some would choose to see as theory, some are reporting as almost-fact."
It's important, however, who sees what as a theory and who sees it as "fact". Are we talking experts, or laypeople? Is the idea new or established? I'll give you an example. Say you don't know anything about molecules or atoms. You put some sugar in some water. What happens? You mihgt theorize that the sugar has disappeared. What if you do know about molecules etc? I could perhaps persuade you that the sugar has dissolved. From then on, you would make factual statements about solids dissolving in solvents...
"And we will be limited to theory for a long time, as in possibly forever."
So what? It's a question of, "Is the theory good enough to answer my questions?". If not, how can it be made better? There are not claims about truth here, just explanation and prediction and understanding.
"Both camps in this discussion should keep their minds firmly open."
If you are referring to creationism vs. science camps, there is a big difference between these two. The first uses revelation as its source of validity, the other evidence. I don't think you should ask anyone to accept both claims - they are fundamentally different.
"True, it's less comfortable, but unless you are responsible for the creation of the universe, you must be prepared to have someone else refute your set of beliefs."
I don't think you can prove the existence of god, hence prove creationism. As for being prepared to have someone refute my theories, sure, that's how science works. (I recommed "The Sturcture of Scientific Revolutions", by Kuhn, if you are interested in this.) But like I said, you are not going to be able to come up with evidence to prove creationism, since the claim is based on revalation rather than physical/theoretical evidence. (Kuhn will tell you that these two sorts of claim are incommensurate - you gotta pick one or the other, but you can't mix.)
"If I remember correctly, the original issue many had was with the very unspecific period that was cited, and the supposed accuracy that surrounded the claim. I'd have to say that it was simply irresponsible, and rather egotistical."
Uncertainty is a fact of both experiments and the universe (Heisenberg's uncertainty principle). I don't think it's fair to call people irresponsible and egotistical for doing things that are impossible to avoid.
"Foreign ideas and media thrive here in the U.S. As a humble example, I proffer the Iron Chef."
You're kidding, right? How many people do you know who go to McDonald's, and how many watch the Iron Chef?
"If that can make it here, and the Danes can't, they just aren't trying."
Perhaps the Americal public is not open to outside ideas. How many people do you think get their news from a source other than CNN, or some other large media group?
"the U.S. is an exporter of cultural products"
It's not just about products, it's about how you live your life and what things you value. I see no problems with a country or individual rejecting american values. It would be interesting to do a survey, and ask both those in the US and those outside what "American Values" are. It think there would be a great disparity between the results.
"disappointed when they are not even willing to sample the wares"
where did you get this idea? the original posting referred to schools choosing Staroffice over MSOffice...
"It indicates a lack of self-confidence in the local culture, an implicit belief that unless they hide behind the bunker of import regulations they will all become pseudo-Americans"
It is very difficult for small cultures to withstand the cultural output of large ones. Hence rules to protect the local culture. It's not a lack of self confidence. No matter how good a swimmer you are, you'd probably put on a life jacket in 20m waves....
"Not to put too fine a point on it, but does Danish TV suck that bad? Is the only protection to shut out the world entirely?"
Again, i'm not sure what you're referring to here...
"We Americans go crazy over anything that is foreign or "exotic" (try being European in San Francisco; you will be mobbed)"
What if you are african and in NY city? or LA? might you be "mobbed" in a not so nice way, perhaps as Rodney King was?
"That is why France's recent embrace of Islam was such a bombshell"
France remains a largely Christian country, but you're probably referring to something i'm not familiar with...
"It's worth considering that the Internet (and global communications in general) are starting to create a true world culture. I'll be sorry if Denmark opts out, choosing neither to receive or contribute"
Where is there evidence for this "global culture"? Even patterns of internet use vary greatly across the earth. How are different languages integrated? Sure, we all use HTTP, but I don't think you can call that a culture...
I'm not sure if you are agreeing with me or not... The Danish decision could be culturally or economically based, i don't know. I was just taking the cultural approach in my response to a previous post... You seem to have assumed that I live in the US, but that's not the case. And, yes, the government/culture there scares me. I was not aware of how alien the US is until I saw "Bowling for Columbine". Even if it's 10% true, it's very scary, and very much worth seeing, even if only to argue about.
"They are afraid of American culture somehow "taking over". Take that as you will, but it seems somehow un-neighborly. It's sad that it is an EU country leading the way to block the free contest of ideas, in order to shore up their feeble tribal identity."
If you visit outside north america, you'll see how widespread our influence is [I am assuming you live in North america. apologies if otherwise.] To sum up the reaction to this trend as "un-neighborly" does it injustice.
How is the flow of influence in a single direction, from North America outwards, "the free contest of ideas"? Just how much Danish culture have you exprienced recently? How many Danes have you discussed ideas with?
I don't think the Danish protectionist policies will in the end work out, especially since the advent of the Internet. But your dismissal of their concerns is just as "un-neighborly" as their actions.
Why are you assuming that the downloaded file is pirated? Is it not possible for a virus to infect an MP3 with malicious code? It's also possible that I could put up "Sounds of waves" or some other crap MP3 that is infected... "Pirates deserve what they get" is no argument for crappy code or DRM.
This will be the last thing I write, because you are a lost cause. You haven't responded to anything that I wrote.
You ask what is my point. My original point was that millions of individuals driving their individual cars makes a lot of pollution, and that public transport will lessen that pollution. If you're going to argue that's wrong, well, you are wrong.
For the rest of your spewings, I hope that you are lucky enough not to become poor in the kind of world that you envison. (Hint. most people in the world are poor. you are just lucky.)
Please stop making up stuff. And please read my comments if you are going to respond to my posts.
"Well, since GM sells cars, and I've never owned one, and Shell sells gasoline, and I haven't gone to a shell station since the era of apartheid protest, I know that I don't do business with them."
I wrote that GM and Shell were examples of big corporations, and you still insist on saying you never had any dealings with these particular companies.
You've never owned a vehicle - that's great. You still "deal" with car companies because all the stuff you buy in stores are shipped using trucks, vans etc. You still "deal" with oil companies because they provide energy for such vehicles, power plants etc. You seem to be unable to deal with a degree of abstraction.
Getting back to my original point, which you never adressed. Americans love their cars. Their energy costs are incredibly low. This combination causes a huge amount of pollution. Recent trend towards the buying of SUVs etc. has led to lower efficiencies in gas consumption. This is why the construction of some public transport project will help reduce pollution.
"Furthermore, that you bring up ENRON, as if it MEANS ANYTHING shows that you're arguing from a position of ideology, not facts. ENRON victimized its employees, and shareholders, was caught and quickly dealt with."
Again, please adress what I wrote. You claimed that government had a monopoly on corruption, and I gave Enron as a counter example. In this case, Enron does mean something: Corporations can be corrupt. Again, this was a counter example to your thinking that corporations can do nothing wrong, since they have shareholders. Can you please respond to the whole of my argument, and not the bits and pieces that you choose to attack?
"Basically your position is the government can do no wrong because YOU PERSONALLY don't like big companies-- which is silly as well because without them, you wouldn't have a job."
I never claimed that the government can do no wrong. For example, in my last post, I agreed with you that they are a big source of pollution. Why do you insist on trying to dictate what I think? If you read any of my posts, which I am seriously beginning to doubt, you would see that I applauded a particular action by one government to set up public transport. From this you conclude that I think government can do no wrong. By what feat of reasoning did you accomplish this?
You are right, I don't like big companies. Their sole motive is profit, and I think this is dangerous, since anything else becomes subservient to their goal of maximizing profits: environment, human rights, communities etc. To suggest that there would be no jobs without big companies is just dumb - unless you have some evidence to convince me otherwise.
I agree that any government will mismanage money. I don't see how eliminating taxes will improve on this, though. (Is that what you meant by "Merely letting people have that money to do with as they wish would have resulted in a far more effective solution to the perceived problem of poverty in retired people."? - i'm not sure what "that money" is or why you started talking about retirees, either...)
"But socialists, ever ignorant of economics, will always endorse government programs that cause poverty-- either because they agree with the real agenda behind them (which is CONTROL over people, eg tyranny) or because they are too stupid to realize they don't work."
Anyone who believes dogmatically in a philosophy is bound to fail, because they will not be living in the world of facts. Your comment sounds just as dogmatic as the practice you are criticizing: All socialists are ignorant of economics, all social programs cause poverty, socialism is about tyranny. The world is not black and white like you make it out to be.
"You'd think the collapse of the USSR and the relative poor performance of europe's economy -- hell you live there! -- would be a clue, but apparently it isn't."
For one thing, I don't live in Europe, so, again, please stop making stuff up. As to what the collapse of the USSR, or the economy of Europe would be a clue to, please enlighten me.
It's pretty sad to see someone retort to name calling when they are unhappy about what they are hearing.
In case you did not understand, GM and Shell are EXAMPLES of large multinational corporations. Unless you are living in complete isolation you are dealing with them, directly or indirectly. If you don't think you are, I think you are mistaken.
You claim that corporations would not waste money on whores, because shareholders would not stand for it. I guess you've never heard of ENRON, and the amount of corruption there. Well, perhaps you didn't trust what was reported, since it was the government that uncovered that mess.
I agree with you that the US government, particularly its military, are huge polluters. However, you cannot discount the pollution produced by individuals. Of course individual people are not the single largest polluter (duh), but there are hundreds of millions of them in the US, and the cheap energy prices makes them huge consumers and polluters.
You claim to state facts, but you haven't substantiated anything that you wrote with evidence. As for claming to have no dealings with GM or Shell, I think it's you who is taken up by myth. I'm not sure who the liberal that you are mentioning is.
I see, you're getting taken to the cleaners to keep the executives of GM, Shell etc. stocked up on whores, and you think I should too?
It's really ironic that you take no responsibility for your own actions. The millions of cars, the polluting power plants, that's all the government's fault, right?
"The Cost is high, but if we wait another 15 years (or is it 20 now, that light rail has been voted on) it will be 5 billion."
'That's not a reason. If we wait forever, the cost will be 0.'
This is not a valid argument. If a public transport system is not invested in, there will be huge costs in traffic jams, public health etc. Dollars are not the only way to measure cost.
Gasoline prices in the US are cheapest in the world, so these complaints sound very thin on the ears of those living outside the USA. This, combined with the gross overuse of energy in the USA, and ridiculous amount of pollution there, leads me to applaud Seattle and Washington State for taking steps to lessen their energy and pollution impact.
"Your "bad for consumers" examples assume that consumers are idiots. If it's so bad, why do people keep abusing themselves by buying Microsoft products?"
>I think handicapped spaces should be located in the back of the lot, because these people have their own personal transportation devices...
>For those not in a wheelchair, there's no need to park in a handicapped spot. Example: every day, I watch a woman through my office window park her car in a handicapped spot, and then get out and literally walk laps around the parking lot for excercise.
Yes, if one person abuses parking privilages, then all such people should be punished! So all wheelchair parking to the back. So that if it's slushy, all those bastards in wheel chairs will have to slog through a lot of it. That'll smarten them up.
Ah, the USA, where the bottom line is the only factor determining if something is worthwhile or just.
The issue here is not the bottom line. It's about building an inclusive society, one that does not exclude people because having them around is just too expensive.
Re:Time to buy some really good sunglasses
on
More on JSF Laser System
·
· Score: 2, Informative
It turns out that weapons whose main function is to blind people are banned by the Geneva convention.
This link http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2002- 07/ns- flm072402.php
actually discusses the weapon to be mounted on the f35.
The article also states 2015 as likely date for entry into service.
If you read the article, you'll see that the heat will get transferred to the fuel. Although this sounds crazy, apparently there will be enough mass so that the temperature change will be only a few degrees.
Look how expensive the (admittedly craptacular) ISS is, and that's in low Earth orbit. That's just short haul compared to the moon. Think of the expense of shipping things like water and fuel and food and equipment to the moon... Even if you want to set up automated stations, you got to set them up with people...
This is interesting news, in that the US pulled out of the international ITER project some years ago. Originally, that tokamak was supposed to reach ignition and sustained burn. The project was scaled down due to cost issues.
Slashdot Mirror
Too bad about reading Kuhn and not understanding him. Too bad about starting a polite discussion and ending it with insults.
Thanks for the Weinberg reference, I will look that up. It would have been nice to let my know what you taught nonsense - maybe I would have learned something.
What I was writing was a brief synopysis of current philosophies of science. If you found them tiring, that's just too bad.
"As to whether we are talking experts, or laypeople, the question that comes to mind most quickly is, "who gets to choose who qualifies as an expert?" "
.95, or any other number?"
.95 is the area this distrubution under two standard deviations away from the middle (mean). So, it's a purely statistical value. I believe if you go on std. dev. away from the mean, you get .68, etc.
This is an important question in the philosophy of science. The quick answer is that "the community of scientists". Of course we can expand this, but in general the community of scientists is a very tight group, which inducts its new members, chooses what's right and wrong etc. There are outside influences, of course. For example, if some funding body thinks nanotechnology is important, the community doing this kind of research will grow etc. The main thing to understand is that unlike what most people (including scientists) think, science is a SOCIAL phenomenon.
"In any case, my issue has always been with the '95% certainty' aspect of this announcement."
Given a normal distribution (of say, ages of the universe), there is a 95% probability that the actual value will lie within two standard deviations of the mean. This gives us both the stated spread of ages, and the 95% value.
You must keep in mind that this is a statistical range and certainty. If the calculations that you make, your assumptions, formulae whatever are wrong, then you'll have a different mean value and range etc. So, what they are saying is, given these assumptions, these observations, these models, we are calculating such and such age for the universe. Within these restrictions, there is a 95% chance the actual age is within the range given. It is a best guess.
"Regarding your mention of uncertainty (as in Heisenberg's example) this is, in fact, my point. If we can't measure multiple variables accurately, how can we account for the innumerable potential variables in measuring the age of the universe?"
Heisenberg's principle puts a fundamental limit on observation (measurement). It simply cannot be circumvented (the act of measurement is the source of uncertainty). It's effects, however, tend to be constrained to the quantum level - usually electrons, atoms, molecules etc.
Again, the question of error or uncertainty is not a question of only measurement. We can't account for all the variables in measuring anything. We make a best guess at a model, a best try at measuring the variables involved. We can get better estimates of the ages by either making better measurements, or coming up with better models. A better model may be more complex, to take into account more features of physical reality, or it may be based on variables that are easier for us to measure, etc.
"Sure, standard deviation might allow for the age, given enough measurements, but what about the percentage of certainty - particularly if only one yardstick is being used? How can we pick a number like
So, what's happening is not "enough mesurements". There is an assumption of a particular distribution, and the
"In regard to the creationism vs. science camps, I am not saying that it is possible to hold both views."
Yes. I think this would be impossible.
"I am saying that one must always consider the possibility that one is wrong. Be prepared for the pardigm shift."
I think this would also be impossible. Say I'm a creationist. I believe in devine revelation, that my holy book holds certain truths. It is unlikely that any evidence against these truths will convince me, because of the strength of my belief. When the two sides of the argument are so far apart in their validity claims, I don't think there is a very good chance of "changing sides".
As for the paradigm shift. You really should consider reading Kuhn, because he's the guy who coined the term. In particular, you can't call creationism a paradigm, since it does not lead to new research or new discoveries. It is more properly a dogma - accepted at face value because of its divine origin.
"Tangentially, I should mention that, while we are most familiar with extreme views on this subject, there are middle views. Many people, including scientists, believe in the "Intelligent Design" theory for example."
Well, that's the great thing about being able to think, isn't it? You can take two ideas and see if you can work out a new synthesis. Unfortunately many people, scientists or not, simply believe a single point of view, without thinking too much about its merits, consequences etc.
"Finally, on the subject of "Is the theory good enough to answer my questions", Kuhn writes that truth cannot be a criterion of scientific theories. Therefore all theories are equal."
This definitely is not right. All theories are not equal. Some are much better than others is DOING CERTAIN THINGS. The value of a theory is definitely linked to what you want to do with it. It's just that you can't you can't say that this theory is good because it's true.
"it simply means that your acceptance or rejection of the theory is predicated on what makes sense to you. It might not be what makes sense to me."
This is absolutely right, and not limited to theories. This is how humans think. There are no universal truths. However, most communities come up with a consensus on what they believe is right, such as church doctrine, science textbooks, laws etc.
"I would doubt that very many people of the general public would care much less take the time to *read* and understand a scientific paper. Such is the tragic nature of our world. People love hype and hate substance!"
Although I might agree with your final sentence, I don't think you are being fair. Scientific articles are written for the auidence of experts in their fields. To read an paper might be easy, but understanding it would require years of graduate work. I have an M.Sc. in physical chemistry, show me and organic chemistry paper, and it might as well be an cell biology paper!
He is saying, if you want to find the answers to your questions, there are many books written on these subjects, astronomy, error analysis etc. He's not being insulting, he's saying that these answers are out there, not hard to find nor too hard to understand.
"From my perspective the argument is that what some would choose to see as theory, some are reporting as almost-fact."
It's important, however, who sees what as a theory and who sees it as "fact". Are we talking experts, or laypeople? Is the idea new or established? I'll give you an example. Say you don't know anything about molecules or atoms. You put some sugar in some water. What happens? You mihgt theorize that the sugar has disappeared. What if you do know about molecules etc? I could perhaps persuade you that the sugar has dissolved. From then on, you would make factual statements about solids dissolving in solvents...
"And we will be limited to theory for a long time, as in possibly forever."
So what? It's a question of, "Is the theory good enough to answer my questions?". If not, how can it be made better? There are not claims about truth here, just explanation and prediction and understanding.
"Both camps in this discussion should keep their minds firmly open."
If you are referring to creationism vs. science camps, there is a big difference between these two. The first uses revelation as its source of validity, the other evidence. I don't think you should ask anyone to accept both claims - they are fundamentally different.
"True, it's less comfortable, but unless you are responsible for the creation of the universe, you must be prepared to have someone else refute your set of beliefs."
I don't think you can prove the existence of god, hence prove creationism. As for being prepared to have someone refute my theories, sure, that's how science works. (I recommed "The Sturcture of Scientific Revolutions", by Kuhn, if you are interested in this.) But like I said, you are not going to be able to come up with evidence to prove creationism, since the claim is based on revalation rather than physical/theoretical evidence. (Kuhn will tell you that these two sorts of claim are incommensurate - you gotta pick one or the other, but you can't mix.)
"If I remember correctly, the original issue many had was with the very unspecific period that was cited, and the supposed accuracy that surrounded the claim. I'd have to say that it was simply irresponsible, and rather egotistical."
Uncertainty is a fact of both experiments and the universe (Heisenberg's uncertainty principle). I don't think it's fair to call people irresponsible and egotistical for doing things that are impossible to avoid.
"Foreign ideas and media thrive here in the U.S. As a humble example, I proffer the Iron Chef."
You're kidding, right? How many people do you know who go to McDonald's, and how many watch the Iron Chef?
"If that can make it here, and the Danes can't, they just aren't trying."
Perhaps the Americal public is not open to outside ideas. How many people do you think get their news from a source other than CNN, or some other large media group?
"the U.S. is an exporter of cultural products"
It's not just about products, it's about how you live your life and what things you value. I see no problems with a country or individual rejecting american values. It would be interesting to do a survey, and ask both those in the US and those outside what "American Values" are. It think there would be a great disparity between the results.
"disappointed when they are not even willing to sample the wares"
where did you get this idea? the original posting referred to schools choosing Staroffice over MSOffice...
"It indicates a lack of self-confidence in the local culture, an implicit belief that unless they hide behind the bunker of import regulations they will all become pseudo-Americans"
It is very difficult for small cultures to withstand the cultural output of large ones. Hence rules to protect the local culture. It's not a lack of self confidence. No matter how good a swimmer you are, you'd probably put on a life jacket in 20m waves....
"Not to put too fine a point on it, but does Danish TV suck that bad? Is the only protection to shut out the world entirely?"
Again, i'm not sure what you're referring to here...
"We Americans go crazy over anything that is foreign or "exotic" (try being European in San Francisco; you will be mobbed)"
What if you are african and in NY city? or LA? might you be "mobbed" in a not so nice way, perhaps as Rodney King was?
"That is why France's recent embrace of Islam was such a bombshell"
France remains a largely Christian country, but you're probably referring to something i'm not familiar with...
"It's worth considering that the Internet (and global communications in general) are starting to create a true world culture. I'll be sorry if Denmark opts out, choosing neither to receive or contribute"
Where is there evidence for this "global culture"? Even patterns of internet use vary greatly across the earth. How are different languages integrated? Sure, we all use HTTP, but I don't think you can call that a culture...
I'm not sure if you are agreeing with me or not... The Danish decision could be culturally or economically based, i don't know. I was just taking the cultural approach in my response to a previous post...
You seem to have assumed that I live in the US, but that's not the case. And, yes, the government/culture there scares me. I was not aware of how alien the US is until I saw "Bowling for Columbine". Even if it's 10% true, it's very scary, and very much worth seeing, even if only to argue about.
"They are afraid of American culture somehow "taking over". Take that as you will, but it seems somehow un-neighborly. It's sad that it is an EU country leading the way to block the free contest of ideas, in order to shore up their feeble tribal identity."
If you visit outside north america, you'll see how widespread our influence is [I am assuming you live in North america. apologies if otherwise.] To sum up the reaction to this trend as "un-neighborly" does it injustice.
How is the flow of influence in a single direction, from North America outwards, "the free contest of ideas"? Just how much Danish culture have you exprienced recently? How many Danes have you discussed ideas with?
I don't think the Danish protectionist policies will in the end work out, especially since the advent of the Internet. But your dismissal of their concerns is just as "un-neighborly" as their actions.
Why are you assuming that the downloaded file is pirated? Is it not possible for a virus to infect an MP3 with malicious code? It's also possible that I could put up "Sounds of waves" or some other crap MP3 that is infected... "Pirates deserve what they get" is no argument for crappy code or DRM.
This will be the last thing I write, because you are a lost cause. You haven't responded to anything that I wrote.
You ask what is my point. My original point was that millions of individuals driving their individual cars makes a lot of pollution, and that public transport will lessen that pollution. If you're going to argue that's wrong, well, you are wrong.
For the rest of your spewings, I hope that you are lucky enough not to become poor in the kind of world that you envison. (Hint. most people in the world are poor. you are just lucky.)
Please stop making up stuff. And please read my comments if you are going to respond to my posts.
"Well, since GM sells cars, and I've never owned one, and Shell sells gasoline, and I haven't gone to a shell station since the era of apartheid protest, I know that I don't do business with them."
I wrote that GM and Shell were examples of big corporations, and you still insist on saying you never had any dealings with these particular companies.
You've never owned a vehicle - that's great. You still "deal" with car companies because all the stuff you buy in stores are shipped using trucks, vans etc. You still "deal" with oil companies because they provide energy for such vehicles, power plants etc. You seem to be unable to deal with a degree of abstraction.
Getting back to my original point, which you never adressed. Americans love their cars. Their energy costs are incredibly low. This combination causes a huge amount of pollution. Recent trend towards the buying of SUVs etc. has led to lower efficiencies in gas consumption. This is why the construction of some public transport project will help reduce pollution.
"Furthermore, that you bring up ENRON, as if it MEANS ANYTHING shows that you're arguing from a position of ideology, not facts. ENRON victimized its employees, and shareholders, was caught and quickly dealt with."
Again, please adress what I wrote. You claimed that government had a monopoly on corruption, and I gave Enron as a counter example. In this case, Enron does mean something: Corporations can be corrupt. Again, this was a counter example to your thinking that corporations can do nothing wrong, since they have shareholders. Can you please respond to the whole of my argument, and not the bits and pieces that you choose to attack?
"Basically your position is the government can do no wrong because YOU PERSONALLY don't like big companies-- which is silly as well because without them, you wouldn't have a job."
I never claimed that the government can do no wrong. For example, in my last post, I agreed with you that they are a big source of pollution. Why do you insist on trying to dictate what I think? If you read any of my posts, which I am seriously beginning to doubt, you would see that I applauded a particular action by one government to set up public transport. From this you conclude that I think government can do no wrong. By what feat of reasoning did you accomplish this?
You are right, I don't like big companies. Their sole motive is profit, and I think this is dangerous, since anything else becomes subservient to their goal of maximizing profits: environment, human rights, communities etc. To suggest that there would be no jobs without big companies is just dumb - unless you have some evidence to convince me otherwise.
I agree that any government will mismanage money. I don't see how eliminating taxes will improve on this, though. (Is that what you meant by "Merely letting people have that money to do with as they wish would have resulted in a far more effective solution to the perceived problem of poverty in retired people."? - i'm not sure what "that money" is or why you started talking about retirees, either...)
"But socialists, ever ignorant of economics, will always endorse government programs that cause poverty-- either because they agree with the real agenda behind them (which is CONTROL over people, eg tyranny) or because they are too stupid to realize they don't work."
Anyone who believes dogmatically in a philosophy is bound to fail, because they will not be living in the world of facts. Your comment sounds just as dogmatic as the practice you are criticizing: All socialists are ignorant of economics, all social programs cause poverty, socialism is about tyranny. The world is not black and white like you make it out to be.
"You'd think the collapse of the USSR and the relative poor performance of europe's economy -- hell you live there! -- would be a clue, but apparently it isn't."
For one thing, I don't live in Europe, so, again, please stop making stuff up. As to what the collapse of the USSR, or the economy of Europe would be a clue to, please enlighten me.
It's pretty sad to see someone retort to name calling when they are unhappy about what they are hearing.
In case you did not understand, GM and Shell are EXAMPLES of large multinational corporations. Unless you are living in complete isolation you are dealing with them, directly or indirectly. If you don't think you are, I think you are mistaken.
You claim that corporations would not waste money on whores, because shareholders would not stand for it. I guess you've never heard of ENRON, and the amount of corruption there. Well, perhaps you didn't trust what was reported, since it was the government that uncovered that mess.
I agree with you that the US government, particularly its military, are huge polluters. However, you cannot discount the pollution produced by individuals. Of course individual people are not the single largest polluter (duh), but there are hundreds of millions of them in the US, and the cheap energy prices makes them huge consumers and polluters.
You claim to state facts, but you haven't substantiated anything that you wrote with evidence. As for claming to have no dealings with GM or Shell, I think it's you who is taken up by myth. I'm not sure who the liberal that you are mentioning is.
I see, you're getting taken to the cleaners to keep the executives of GM, Shell etc. stocked up on whores, and you think I should too?
It's really ironic that you take no responsibility for your own actions. The millions of cars, the polluting power plants, that's all the government's fault, right?
"The Cost is high, but if we wait another 15 years (or is it 20 now, that light rail has been voted on) it will be 5 billion."
'That's not a reason. If we wait forever, the cost will be 0.'
This is not a valid argument. If a public transport system is not invested in, there will be huge costs in traffic jams, public health etc. Dollars are not the only way to measure cost.
Gasoline prices in the US are cheapest in the world, so these complaints sound very thin on the ears of those living outside the USA. This, combined with the gross overuse of energy in the USA, and ridiculous amount of pollution there, leads me to applaud Seattle and Washington State for taking steps to lessen their energy and pollution impact.
This has been adressed many times.
Most computers ships with MS OS and office suites. And for most users, who are not technically savvy, Linux, although legitimate, is not practical.
"Your "bad for consumers" examples assume that consumers are idiots. If it's so bad, why do people keep abusing themselves by buying Microsoft products?"
Because Microsoft has a (near) monopoly?
No, you're not reality. You're just a collegial xenophobe, who has no idea what the world is like outside of your own little sphere of experience.
Yes, you are perfectly right. I was thinking about the "they'll provide the service if it's profitable" line when I wrote my post.
I guess writing when angry is not a good idea.
So, Southwest just breaks the law, because it is not convenient for it to follow it. Very nice. Remind me never to fly with them.
>I think handicapped spaces should be located in the back of the lot, because these people have their own personal transportation devices...
>For those not in a wheelchair, there's no need to park in a handicapped spot. Example: every day, I watch a woman through my office window park her car in a handicapped spot, and then get out and literally walk laps around the parking lot for excercise.
Yes, if one person abuses parking privilages, then all such people should be punished! So all wheelchair parking to the back. So that if it's slushy, all those bastards in wheel chairs will have to slog through a lot of it. That'll smarten them up.
Ah, the USA, where the bottom line is the only factor determining if something is worthwhile or just.
The issue here is not the bottom line. It's about building an inclusive society, one that does not exclude people because having them around is just too expensive.
It turns out that weapons whose main function is to blind people are banned by the Geneva convention.
- 07/ns- flm072402.php
This link
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2002
actually discusses the weapon to be mounted on the f35.
The article also states 2015 as likely date for entry into service.
If you read the article, you'll see that the heat will get transferred to the fuel. Although this sounds crazy, apparently there will be enough mass so that the temperature change will be only a few degrees.
Look how expensive the (admittedly craptacular) ISS is, and that's in low Earth orbit. That's just short haul compared to the moon. Think of the expense of shipping things like water and fuel and food and equipment to the moon... Even if you want to set up automated stations, you got to set them up with people...
This is interesting news, in that the US pulled out of the international ITER project some years ago. Originally, that tokamak was supposed to reach ignition and sustained burn. The project was scaled down due to cost issues.